Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?

Try the old test of listening normally and with hands cupped behind the ears to see how much difference can be heard in response to a small change.
Mapman (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

I much prefer the ear-cupped sound. Someone should make an ear-cup audiophile tweak.

Re flat frequency response at the listening position.

Every time I've heard cones in boxes that promised something like FFR +/- 2db a 2 meters for example, they were just bright as hell, and even more so if they had a strong off axis response.

That experience causes me to wonder what the frequency response of an omni would be on axis in a space with out boundaries to reinforce the on axis FR.

I suspect that proper set up in a room is what makes or breaks omni's and that properly situated the FFR is the sum of the on axis, 360 degree off axis, and room reinforcement, to a much larger degree than cones in boxes.

I think FFR with an omni might be fine - but not so much with cones in boxes (or maybe electrostatics and panels, not just so much so.)

Does this make any sense?

Al, what you describe seems to me to be an argument against the goal of a system that measures flat in-room since the measuring is inaccurate, unless there's some measurement device that avoids or compensates for reflected sound.

Yes, exactly, although I wouldn't say "avoids." I would say the measurements, and the analysis of the measurements, need to take into account arrival time as well as frequency domain characteristics. Some computer programs will do that, to an approximation that apparently can sometimes be useful (I haven't used any of them myself).

I just listen and go with what pleases me.

You're doing the right thing!

Best regards,
-- Al

This is a very hot debate and I'm not sure I have much to contribute except that I've owned both passive and active loudspeakers (Emerald Physics 2.3s)and a long list of internet available speakers (Axiom 80's, OHM Micro Talls, MMG's, SVS, Ascend Acoustics, Magnestand MMGs, well, you get the idea. Since this thread is in regard to OHM's, let me just say I enjoyed the Micro OHM's more than any of the other OHM speakers I tried. (100s and Micro Talls) This is the little speaker that could. It totally disappeared in my room and was much more "immediate" in "feeling" than the other OHM speakers which I felt projected an image too far away for my tastes (though this little speaker is dynamically limited). The micro OHM had a "perspective" of the front or second row of a concert hall while the other OHMs seem to place the listener too far back for me. This worked fine for movies, however, as "background" became what it should be "background". For music, however, I found the "OHM" sound to be a bit "removed" given it's image projection. I know this is a "taste" thing and has nothing to do with "accuracy". I think it just depends on where you like to "sit" at a concert. I must also add I've NOT heard the latest incarnations of the upper end OHMs so maybe this has changed. This is a remarkable speaker and I wish in no way to diminish it's contribution to accurate sound reproduction but I do think "where you like to sit at a music event or movie theater" is relevent to a choice of a reproducing loudspeaker.

Interesting MWTs (which I have not heard) were more forward. No Walshes I have heard are.

It could have to do with tonal balance in a particular room. WHen the supertweeter is more predominant, I have noticed soundstage tends to be smaller. Perhaps things also become more forward?

OHM Walshes in general are not for those that prefer a more forward presentation. Not much goes on in front of the speakers in general I have found. Same true of mbl omnis I have heard. THis may be a general trait of omnis but I am not certain.